linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 4/6] efi: Get the secure boot status

lists.openwall.net		lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC
Open Source and information security mailing list archives

Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Date:   Tue, 22 Nov 2016 14:47:27 +0000
From:   David Howells <dhowells@...hat.com>
To:     Lukas Wunner <lukas@...ner.de>
Cc:     dhowells@...hat.com, Matthew Garrett <matthew.garrett@...ula.com>,
        linux-efi@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
        linux-security-module@...r.kernel.org, keyrings@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 4/6] efi: Get the secure boot status

Lukas Wunner <lukas@...ner.de> wrote:

> > +int efi_get_secureboot(void)
> 
> It looks like you didn't compile-test this on ARM.

Yes.  What arm config would you suggest?

> > +#define f_getvar(...) efi_call_runtime(get_variable, __VA_ARGS__)
> > +
> > +	status = f_getvar((efi_char16_t *)sb_var_name, (efi_guid_t *)&var_guid,
> > +			  NULL, &size, &val);
>
> Just replace the f_getvar yourself instead of having cpp do it:
>
> 	status = efi_call_runtime(get_variable, (efi_char16_t *)sb_var_name,
> 				  (efi_guid_t *)&var_guid, NULL, &size, &val);

That makes it less clear.  I think something like this makes it much more
obvious:

    static efi_status_t get_efi_var(const efi_char16_t *name,
				const efi_guid_t *vendor,
				u32 *attr,
				unsigned long *data_size, void *data)
    {
	return efi_call_runtime(get_variable,
				(efi_char16_t *)name, (efi_guid_t *)vendor,
				attr, data_size, data);
    }

And then doing:

	status = get_efi_var(efi_SecureBoot_name, &efi_variable_guid,
			     NULL, &size, &val);

which the compiler will inline.

> The "out_efi_err" portion differs from the previous version of this
> patch.  Setting a __u8 to a negative value, is this really what you
> want?

Eh?  efi_get_secureboot() returns an int as before.  The out_efi_err: portions
are exactly the same:

> -static int efi_get_secureboot(...)	> +int efi_get_secureboot(...)
> ...					> ...
> -out_efi_err:				> +out_efi_err:
> -	switch (status) {		> +	switch (status) {
> -	case EFI_NOT_FOUND:		> +	case EFI_NOT_FOUND:
> -		return 0;		> +		return 0;
> -	case EFI_DEVICE_ERROR:		> +	case EFI_DEVICE_ERROR:
> -		return -EIO;		> +		return -EIO;
> -	case EFI_SECURITY_VIOLATION:	> +	case EFI_SECURITY_VIOLATION:
> -		return -EACCES;		> +		return -EACCES;
> -	default:			> +	default:
> -		return -EINVAL;		> +		return -EINVAL;
> -	}				> +	}
> -}

David